Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: War of the Roses - causes

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    master of the pwniverse Member Fragony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    The EUSSR
    Posts
    30,680

    Default Re: War of the Roses - causes

    2-feud developing between York and somerset.

    Wasn't it York and Lancaster?

  2. #2
    master of the wierd people Member Ibrahim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Who cares
    Posts
    6,195

    Default Re: War of the Roses - causes

    Quote Originally Posted by Fragony View Post
    2-feud developing between York and somerset.

    Wasn't it York and Lancaster?
    no, not at the begining. at the begining, it was york and somerset. when the King and his Margeret butted in, and took up arms against York, in wake of St. Albans (and somerset's death), then it truly became york vs. Lancaster (as Henry VI was from the house of Lancaster).
    Last edited by Ibrahim; 03-04-2009 at 17:48.
    I was once alive, but then a girl came and took out my ticker.

    my 4 year old modding project--nearing completion: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=219506 (if you wanna help, join me).

    tired of ridiculous trouble with walking animations? then you need my brand newmotion capture for the common man!

    "We have proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that if we put the belonging to, in the I don't know what, all gas lines will explode " -alBernameg

  3. #3
    Gangrenous Member Justiciar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Stockport, England
    Posts
    1,116

    Default Re: War of the Roses - causes

    I'd argue the problem started two generations prior to that, with Bolingbroke's siezure of power. The scene was pretty much set during his (or rather, Richard's) reign, and only briefly stalled by the generally uniting presence of Henry V.
    When Adam delved and Eve span, Who was then the gentleman? From the beginning all men by nature were created alike, and our bondage or servitude came in by the unjust oppression of naughty men. For if God would have had any bondsmen from the beginning, he would have appointed who should be bound, and who free. And therefore I exhort you to consider that now the time is come, appointed to us by God, in which ye may (if ye will) cast off the yoke of bondage, and recover liberty. - John Ball

  4. #4
    Bopa Member Incongruous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    H.M.S Default
    Posts
    2,647

    Default Re: War of the Roses - causes

    Quote Originally Posted by Justiciar View Post
    I'd argue the problem started two generations prior to that, with Bolingbroke's siezure of power. The scene was pretty much set during his (or rather, Richard's) reign, and only briefly stalled by the generally uniting presence of Henry V.
    I Disagree, Henry V created a sense of right and justice about the Lancaster claim to the throne by his massive conquests in France. The friction came about due to Henry VI's lack of all Kingly qualities and easy manipulation at the hand sof his wife. Richard of York never showed any signs of a traitorous character prior to his embaressment by D'Anjou and general shaming by the court.

    I expect that had Humphrey and York been able to dominate the court and England's governance a civil war would as always have been on the cards, this was England after all, yet the chances of it being played would have been minimal, instead of certain.
    Last edited by Incongruous; 03-07-2009 at 04:24.

    Sig by Durango

    Now that the House of Commons is trying to become useful, it does a great deal of harm.
    -Oscar Wilde

  5. #5
    master of the wierd people Member Ibrahim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Who cares
    Posts
    6,195

    Default Re: War of the Roses - causes

    Quote Originally Posted by Justiciar View Post
    I'd argue the problem started two generations prior to that, with Bolingbroke's siezure of power. The scene was pretty much set during his (or rather, Richard's) reign, and only briefly stalled by the generally uniting presence of Henry V.
    no. definitly Henry VI. as he was too weak to act for himself. one comtemporary chronicle basically said, that even though he was a holy person (he apparently prayed much), with good intent, he was surrounded "by many bad men". It didn't help that parts of England were reeling from the aftermath of the jack cade rebellion (IIRC Kent), which added to the discontent of the nobles, and commen folk. this in my opinion would have showed York that henry couldn't do much, if not his inability to restrain D'anjou. that ould have helped forthur undermine his standing, and hence, stablity in the court..

    I had a book in Kuwait about the war, with lots of primary sources. thank god for Arab memorizing ability.
    Last edited by Ibrahim; 03-07-2009 at 06:05.
    I was once alive, but then a girl came and took out my ticker.

    my 4 year old modding project--nearing completion: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=219506 (if you wanna help, join me).

    tired of ridiculous trouble with walking animations? then you need my brand newmotion capture for the common man!

    "We have proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that if we put the belonging to, in the I don't know what, all gas lines will explode " -alBernameg

  6. #6
    Yorkist Senior Member NagatsukaShumi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    York, England
    Posts
    2,246

    Default Re: War of the Roses - causes

    Henry was a sorry soul, he was undoubtedly by anyones standards a good man, but it is important to remember that was just not cut out to be King. What made him such a nice person made him such a bad King and sadly he suffered a mental breakdown which can be bad enough for anybody, but for a King is can be catastrophic, whilst most would have people around them trying to help them, he had people plotting and power grabbing behind his back.

    Maragaret, though, imo, is still the major culprit, imo her love wasn't for the King, but her son, I assume this because of the way she manipulated her husband, of course feminist historians make her out to be a Saint, but sadly they are letting their ovaries cloud their judgement on that one. Whilst she had some admirable qualities, she was also a manipulative woman who favoured her friends over men of huge power, and she paid the price for it as she watched her son and husband die before living out her life elsewhere.
    RIP TosaInu
    Ja Mata

  7. #7
    For England and St.George Senior Member ShadesWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Staffordshire, England
    Posts
    3,938

    Default Re: War of the Roses - causes

    Some interesting points guys. This is a summary of what I put in my essay on the subject for my degree:

    Sir John Fortescue's The Governance of England, warns of the dangers of weak leadership in the governing of a state. It discusses the outcome of a king in debt, it talks about the dangers of having ‘over-mighty’ subjects and finally it warns of the wise choosing of a king’s council.

    Fortescue warns of the consequences of over powerful nobles, “Here he shows the perils that might come to the king by over-mighty subjects” . He goes on to talk about those nobles giving battle to their king “ We have also seen recently in our own realm, some of the kings subjects give him battle, by occasion that their livelihood and office were the greatest of the land”

    M.H.Keen describes Richard of York as being “after the king, he was the greatest landowner in the realm” [Keen, England in the Middle Ages, P2]. This describes a powerful lord, second only to the king. Richard’s quarrel was not with the king but with the Duke of Somerset. This quarrel was not over land, or inheritance, or local influence; it was a political feud [Keen, England in the Middle Ages, P1]. However, this feud would put the Yorkist up against the Lancastrians, and eventually develop into civil war.

    Fortescue also talks about a king’s council and how it should be chosen “…from the greatest lords of the land”, it should also be made up of wisest and most powerful in the realm, these men should swear an oath to the king and take no reward from any other man, except the king.

    When we use these descriptions to compare what historians say about Henry VI, we can see we have problems. Macfarlane suggests that Henry VI failed in good lordship “he did not build up a body of noble retainers who owned loyalty to him alone.

    From the extract we can learn that the state of England in the fifteenth century was not good. Henry VI’s council were not the most powerful Lords, they had their own interest at heart, this combined with his bouts of illness divided the aristocracy into those who profited from his continuance on the throne and those who did not the house of York did not profit, thus they had no alternative but to take up arms.

    Bibliography

    O’Day, R. (2007) ‘Unit 3: English Society in the later Middle Ages: The end of the French Wars and the Wars of the Roses’ in A200 Block 1, France, England and Burgundy in the fifteenth century, Milton Keynes, the Open University.

    Gibbons, Rachel C (ed) (2006) Exploring History 1400-1900. An Anthology of Primary sources, Manchester, Manchester University Press.

    Keen, M. England in the Later Middle Ages: A Political History: The Wars of the Roses 1450-1461. Online resource on the course website.
    ShadesWolf
    The Original HHHHHOWLLLLLLLLLLLLER

    Im a Wolves fan, get me out of here......


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO